See problem. Complain about problem. Wonder why nothing changes.

You’re here because that’s not good enough for you. Quill Sword is here because it shouldn’t be good enough for anyone. We don’t have to accept the status quo – we can work for good changes. And we start with having an idea of what the solutions should look like.

One set of solutions involves curtailing government power – this is not a bad way to go. The Institute for Justice, to whom we are grateful for the research that they have made publicly available, has a number of such solutions outlined – check out that link above (scroll down and look under Procedural Protections) and let them explain their ideas.

But procedural protections – as important as they are – don’t get at the heart of the problem. Incentivizing poor governmental behavior only guarantees that government will behave poorly. Maybe not all at once or in every jurisdiction – there really are well meaning politicians out there – but eventually it will happen and happen all over the place. High handed government is bad government – and we have the responsibility to constrain our government and train it to behave well. That’s what it means to be a government of the people.

Fines are punitive measures – they punish bad behavior. What if we incentivized good behavior? Would it be perfect – of course not, we all come in size human – but would it be better? In all likelihood, yes. If people believe their government isn’t unjust and does work for the good of all, they are a lot more forgiving when government makes legitimate mistakes. And they are a LOT more willing to work toward better solutions for those mistakes.

But we have to deal with the real world – some people really are jerks. Some really will violate laws and ordinances maliciously – because they come in the same size human as the rest of us. We cannot and should not allow that to go unchallenged.

Here’s the thing: no one is the worst thing they ever did. No one is the best thing they ever did, either. We are works in progress – all of us. That means that just because someone is a jerk – or a crook – now doesn’t mean they have to stay that way. The important question is how do we get them to want to move toward the good citizen side rather than the jerk neighbor side?

We are often given the dichotomy of ‘carrot or stick’. I propose stick with carrot. Punishment has its use – but incentive is stronger in a lot of ways. Here’s the idea: Return fines to the person AFTER they demonstrate improved behavior.

Bob decides that mowing his lawn is too annoying – or he’s just too lazy. Whatever, Bob willfully and without excuse refuses to mow his lawn. This isn’t because he can’t – he won’t. So the city cites him and he doesn’t pay the fine. Three citations later and a visit from the sheriff telling Bob face to face that he danged well better be in court, Bob goes to court. Bob is fined $500. No court costs – we pay for our own courts – just the cumulative fines for not bothering to mow the grass.

That $500 doesn’t go to the state or the city. It goes in an investment account.

Bob appeals and loses (see IJ’s procedural protections). The final decision is that Bob did have to pay that money.

It stays in the account.

The money remains in that account, accruing interest, for 5 years. IF and ONLY IF Bob hasn’t had another citation that was his fault (we don’t punish him if he breaks a leg badly) then he gets all but 1% ($5.00) of the original fine PLUS all the interest it has accrued. The five dollars goes to the account administration costs. Since the city isn’t going to do anything fancier than rolling over a CD, they don’t get more than 1% in costs because money sitting in an account isn’t really costing the city anything. The city was going to have to pay for bookkeeping and auditing anyway.

If Bob doesn’t pay? Take it out of his state income tax – or Federal if your state doesn’t have income tax (that one is harder to accomplish but is totally doable – especially if the Federal government is doing similar things with fine revenue! Dream big – it’s the only way to get big things done!) or at probate – look, Bob is going to pay something directly to the government eventually – a little creativity is all it takes. Bob’s refund or whatever goes into his fine account – and no additional fees. There’s no point in that.

So what happens if Bob gets another ticket? We add a year – plus any new fines – to the account. If Bob is idiot enough to keep racking up fines, he will be building a little investment account – but it’s a crappy way to invest. Bob would be better off mowing the lawn, getting that money back and putting it into a better investment portfolio. We don’t want to incentivize Bob’s bad behavior while disincentivizing the city’s. But ultimately, the money remains Bob’s – and inaccessible until he really starts behaving himself.

And if Bob is really determined? Well, he’s an idiot and he’s hurting himself both short and long term, but okay – ya can’t win them all. At the 20 year mark, that first $500 goes back to Bob with its interest. This continues each year until Bob has all his money back.

What if Bob, still being a jerk, becomes disabled and dependent on SSI? IF he’s already past the first 20 year mark, just return the funds – this isn’t accomplishing anything. If not, then evaluate the case – and figure it out from there. Otherwise, just wait the five years or have a hearing to determine that Bob is in extreme need – if so, give it to him. He just didn’t mow his lawn – the punishment should never exceed the crime.

Now, how is this likely to work out? Well, first we have to put in a LOT of strong protections to keep the government from using that money in any way – no borrowing against it, no loaning it to the city, none of that. Because Bob’s $500 isn’t that big a deal – but 100 Bobs? $50,000 is a nice chunk of money for some councilman’s pet project – so we have to be careful to keep greedy hands away.

What about Bob? Well, the truth is, we usually get over ourselves. Bob might hold out a couple years but eventually, he gets sick of the annual $500 fine (and no, the fine shouldn’t be collected more often – we don’t want Bob using the court as a piggy bank) and just buys a lawn mower. Or maybe whatever happened that had him in such a bad mood passes and he just goes back to mowing the lawn. Either way, the grass gets cut.

As time goes on, it’s highly unlikely Bob or anyone else will keep repeating this idiot cycle – at least not on purpose. Most people will start thinking about that annual statement – and what they can do with that money when they get it back. At the very least, a lot will want it back because it’s theirs. And out comes the mower…

Because the city has no real financial incentive, when Mary goes on Social Security and can’t afford the lawn work, the judge isn’t going to be real happy with the idiot cop that cited her. In fact, it’s a great opportunity for the city to work with local churches and charities to find Mary the help she needs – because the real goal here is getting shorter grass, not punishing those who really can’t comply – and really can’t afford the fines, either.

Taking away the financial incentive to issue citations actually increases the opportunities to find better solutions to the problem that the ordinance was addressing in the first place. At the very least, it reduces the need for more law enforcement in otherwise low crime areas.

This isn’t necessarily an idea limited to municipalities. Why not use the punitive fine to become a incentive at the state level as well? Some misdemeanors like speeding where the violation is fairly minor (5mph over in a 55mph zone isn’t as bad as 30 mph over in a 25mph zone, for example) can also benefit. Maybe Tom drives a little slower because he’s got $1500 sitting in that account and wouldn’t mind a new computer – if he can just keep his foot off the gas another year…

And maybe Harry the traffic cop worries a bit more about the guy driving like a lunatic and not hitting his quota because no mayor is hoping to get a new desk and breathing down his bosses neck.

Stick – and carrot. Let’s get the actual purpose accomplished rather than just doing something that doesn’t do anything, at least not anything that gets the job done.